Thank you

Good job at clarifying the argument.

I know what your comment was I read it in the email alert. I responded to it.

Please continue. Though it may be impossible to continue on this site for me for technical reasons.

I entreat you to post this argument on Reddit and Incan easily respond.

To help you find what I wrote a few hours ago, I am doing a copy and paste here. What I wrote is below:

Hi Phillip Dent,
(@disqus_j9U3tmXVid:disqus)

Thanks for your patience. You wrote:

I agree with all of it except i'll note that just being conditioned only says a thing isn't brute or metaphysically necessary, not what type of conditioned entity it is, or what type of condition or conditions must have existed to for it to.

That means you agree with Premise 1. See below on what I meant by Premise 1 within the context of our conversation.

Premise 1 claims that there exists conditioned entities such as fire, a cup of coffee, a physically alive human person, a lion, etc. Such a conditioned entity’s existence would be continuously dependent on the fulfillment of one or more conditions.

Let us consider a cup of coffee beverage. One of the conditions for a cup of coffee drink to continuously exist for one hour is for water molecules to continuously exist for one hour:

coffee drink > water molecules

The continuous existence of water molecules for an hour is a condition (ie one of the conditions) that needs to be fulfilled in order for that cup of coffee beverage to continuously exist for an hour.

So in general,
conditioned entity > condition 1

Other examples:

fire > oxygen molecules
you > biological cells
lion > biological cells
fire > fuel (eg petrol)

In our case of that cup of coffee beverage whose existence is continuously conditional on the existence of water molecules: since the continuous existence of water molecules is in turn conditional upon the fulfillment of some other condition (eg the condition that oxygen atoms continue to exist), we have this series:

coffee drink > water molecules > oxygen atoms

Since the continuation in existence of oxygen atoms is not unconditional but instead is conditional upon the fulfillment of some other conditions, we have this series:

coffee drink > water molecules > oxygen atoms > ...

(BTW, just a side comment: even the moon’s CONTINUATION in existence for another year, month or day is conditional on the fulfillment of one or more conditions.)

=======

From the above example of a cup of coffee beverage, we can generalize that the continuation in the continuous existence of cup of coffee is conditional on the fulfillment of condition 1,

while the fulfillment of condition 1 is conditional on the fulfillment of condition 2, and so on and on.

coffee drink > condition 1 > condition 2 > ...

=======

Why that series has an ending

The fact that a cup of coffee beverage has continuously existed for an hour entails (ie necessarily means) that the above series of conditions has achieved fulfillment for an hour.

This successful fulfillment in turn entails that the series is not an unending series, because it is an unending task to fulfill an unending series of conditions.

That is why such a series has an ending in this manner:

coffee drink > condition 1 > condition 2 > ... > last condition

Any problem with the above so far?

:)

Cheers!

Can't use this site anymore. Insanely slow, cannot find your comment. An infinite series does not imply an infinite task, but I'm not committed to an infinite series, rather either it's that or something is brute.

Again just because an entity has continuous dependency, doesn't mean it it's entirely continuously dependent. E.g a cup of coffee is continuously dependent on its molecules but non continuously dependent on the brewing of the coffee, the heating of the water. Interestingly, the efficient causes appear to be non continuous.

Hi Phillip Dent,
(@disqus_j9U3tmXVid:disqus)

I have just responded to you in a new thread. Over there I wrote the following:

Thanks for your patience. You wrote:

I agree with all of it except i'll note that just being conditioned only says a thing isn't brute or metaphysically necessary, not what type of conditioned entity it is, or what type of condition or conditions must have existed to for it to.

That means you agree with Premise 1. See below on what I meant by Premise 1 within the context of our conversation.

Premise 1 claims that there exists conditioned entities such as fire, a cup of coffee, a physically alive human person etc. Such a conditioned entity’s existence would be continuously dependent on the fulfillment of one or more conditions.

Let us consider a cup of coffee beverage. One of the conditions for a cup of coffee drink to continuously exist for one hour is for water molecules to continuously exist for one hour:

coffee drink > water molecules

The continuous existence of water molecules for an hour is a condition (ie one of the conditions) that needs to be fulfilled in order for that cup of coffee beverage to continuously exist for an hour.

So in general,
conditioned entity > condition 1

Other examples:

fire > oxygen molecules
you > biological cells
lion > biological cells
fire > fuel (eg petrol)

In our case of that cup of coffee beverage whose existence is continuously conditional on the existence of water molecules: since the continuous existence of water molecules is in turn conditional upon the fulfillment of some other condition (eg the condition that oxygen atoms continue to exist), we have this series:

coffee drink > water molecules > oxygen atoms

Since the continuation in existence of oxygen atoms’ is not unconditional but instead is conditional upon the fulfillment of some other conditions, we have this series:

coffee drink > water molecules > oxygen atoms > ...

(BTW, just a side comment: even the moon’s CONTINUATION in existence for another year, month or day is conditional on the fulfillment of one or more conditions.)

=======

From the above example of a cup of coffee beverage, we can generalize that the continuation in the continuous existence of cup of coffee is conditional on the fulfillment of condition 1,

while the fulfillment of condition 1 is conditional on the fulfillment of condition 2, and so on and on.

coffee drink > condition 1 > condition 2 > ...

=======

Why that series has an ending

The fact that a cup of coffee beverage has continuously existed for an hour entails (ie necessarily means) that the above series of conditions has achieved fulfillment for an hour.

This successful fulfillment in turn entails that the series is not an unending series, because it is an unending task to fulfill an unending series of conditions.

That is why such a series has an ending in this manner:

coffee drink > condition 1 > condition 2 > ... > last condition

Any problem with the above so far?

:)

Cheers!

Thanks for your patience. You wrote:

I agree with all of it except i'll note that just being conditioned only says a thing isn't brute or metaphysically necessary, not what type of conditioned entity it is, or what type of condition or conditions must have existed to for it to.

That means you agree with Premise 1. See below on what I meant by Premise 1 within the context of our conversation.

Premise 1 claims that there exists conditioned entities such as fire, a cup of coffee, a physically alive human person etc. Such a conditioned entity’s existence would be continuously dependent on the fulfillment of one or more conditions.

Let us consider a cup of coffee beverage. One of the conditions for a cup of coffee drink to continuously exist for one hour is for water molecules to continuously exist for one hour:

coffee drink > water molecules

The continuous existence of water molecules for an hour is a condition (ie one of the conditions) that needs to be fulfilled in order for that cup of coffee beverage to continuously exist for an hour.

So in general,
conditioned entity > condition 1

Other examples:

fire > oxygen molecules
you > biological cells
lion > biological cells
fire > fuel (eg petrol)

In our case of that cup of coffee beverage whose existence is continuously conditional on the existence of water molecules: since the continuous existence of water molecules is in turn conditional upon the fulfillment of some other condition (eg the condition that oxygen atoms continue to exist), we have this series:

coffee drink > water molecules > oxygen atoms

Since the continuation in existence of oxygen atoms’ is not unconditional but instead is conditional upon the fulfillment of some other conditions, we have this series:

coffee drink > water molecules > oxygen atoms > ...

(BTW, just a side comment: even the moon’s CONTINUATION in existence for another year, month or day is conditional on the fulfillment of one or more conditions.)

=======

From the above example of a cup of coffee beverage, we can generalize that the continuation in the continuous existence of cup of coffee is conditional on the fulfillment of condition 1,

while the fulfillment of condition 1 is conditional on the fulfillment of condition 2, and so on and on.

coffee drink > condition 1 > condition 2 > ...

=======

Why that series has an ending

The fact that a cup of coffee beverage has continuously existed for an hour entails (ie necessarily means) that the above series of conditions has achieved fulfillment for an hour.

This successful fulfillment in turn entails that the series is not an unending series, because it is an unending task to fulfill an unending series of conditions.

That is why such a series has an ending in this manner:

coffee drink > condition 1 > condition 2 > ... > last condition

Any problem with the above so far?

:)

Cheers!

Hi GHF,

You are wrong. My premise is not about “an entity is made up of things” but “an entity’s existence is continuously dependent:conditional on another entity’s existence”.

For example, a fire’s existence is continuously dependent/conditional on the existence of oxygen molecules. The fire is not made up of oxygen molecules.

Why would it be difficult to understand that a fire’s existence is continuously dependent/conditional on the existence of oxygen molecules?

You should not change my argument into something else. That would likely result in you creating a straw man.

:)

Cheers!